All I really want is to hear an explanation from Nat Friedman, CEO of GitHub, the human being, who said he wouldn't pull resources away from Atom development and then evidently did so soon after, to end all this needless speculation once and for all (and what you've suggested in your comment is still speculation, however plausible it might seem to you).

It offers very little solace to the few Atom users still hanging on, but I think the least he could do is end the speculation, and provide some certainty on Atom's future as a GitHub/Microsoft funded project so we could decide to either move on or stick around for longer.

Please realize that there still hasn't been an official statement that Atom's development at GitHub/Microsoft has been halted/dramatically reduced, or that they hope to transition it into a community led project, or anything to that effect.

I hope an official nail in the proverbial coffin is not too much to ask for.

EDIT: This comment was a lot snarkier in an earlier iteration. In hindsight, I realize that was in bad taste, so I've reworded it and adjusted the tone. I don't think being needlessly confrontational adds any substance to the discussion here (or anywhere else for that matter), so I would like to apologize for that and hopefully de-escalate so we can resume civil discourse.

> It offers very little solace to the few Atom users still hanging on

This is kind of hilarious. What are you hanging on for? It's damn editor. Pick a new one and move on.

Sometimes my wife wants an explanation from me the human being who said he would take the trash out but then never did.

Then maybe you should own up to the consequences of the choice you made and explain your reasoning for not fulfilling the promise that you made.

I did. I was playing Factorio and all of a sudden it was 3am.

Why does he owe you an explanation for a product that was free? Its posts like this that convince him that open source isn't worth contributing to.

Gosh, you have completely misunderstood the point of this comment.

The comment is not asking for an explanation about supporting an open source product.

They're asking for an explanation about promising continuing support for something and then apparently doing nothing to back that claim up.

You seem to be implying that integrity in public statements should only apply if you're referring to non-free commercial software.

Nothing is free. Accountability matters.